[JASmith]

*=Estimated.

Dyno:

HP/TQ vs Speed At the Wheel to show the effect of transmission choice:

 

[ToadVine]

Thanks, @JASmith, for gathering all this info into one place. Very helpful.

 

[HSC4ME]

Good info, but having a hard time understanding what lines are what on those last two charts:

2.0T = 2.0L Turbo (?) What Trans?
2.5H + ?
H2.5 = ?
H2.5T = ?

 

[JASmith]

2.0T = Maverick Turbo 8-speed torque converter
2.5H = Maverick Hybrid e-CVT
H2.5 = Hyundai 2.5 Naturally Aspirated 8-speed torque converter
H2.5T = Hyundai 2.5 Turbo 8-speed DCT (wet)

Fun facts: Only the top Lariat trim in the Maverick has basic features like push-button start. The hybrid is also a tiny 1.1 kWh battery (for comparison the Tucson is 1.5 and 14kWh in hybrid and plugin respectively) and yet the cutout area under the truck for the battery is much larger than required, implying that Ford is leaving themselves room for a future PHEV with a bigger battery that also may feature "Pro Power Onboard" which allows the vehicle to act as a powerful generator at camping or construction sites.

 

[HSC4ME]

Thank you!

Where's the RPM numbers on the last chart? Or I guess you can look at the chart above to get an idea...

I suspect the RPM turbo lag effects are even greater below 1000 RPM, but mostly a feel thing.

Hard to equate driving feel from those charts. Going to have to get behind the wheel and give them all a test drive.

 

[JASmith]

Where's the RPM numbers on the last chart? Or I guess you can look at the chart above to get an idea...

I suspect the RPM turbo lag effects are even greater below 1000 RPM, but mostly a feel thing.

On the left, but as you'd expect, when underway its not dropping RPM that low. What it is showing is that the gearing is very tall (it appears to only be in 6th gear at 140mph), wide spaced, and not rushed shifting, and of course that's from the Santa Fe and probably not in sport mode which would make the power drop less pronounced at the cost of a little extra harshness. I'd prefer lower gearing, which the SC in order to achieve better towing numbers may have, which would make it feel much faster at the cost of a few MPG (which is perhaps why its lower than we expect, the Maverick tow package also changes the final drive).

Regarding the "feel" of the 8-speed wet DCT, it has positive press, like C&D say here from the Santa Fe:

The new turbo-four and the eight-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission work together seamlessly. Runs to 60 mph take a quick 6.0 seconds, and the transmission readily downshifts and helps the Santa Fe move from 50 to 70 mph in 4.1 seconds. That sprint to 60 mph is just behind the 280-hp Honda Passport's 5.8-second dash and noticeably quicker than the 6.8-second effort we recorded in a Ford Edge Titanium with a 250-hp turbocharged 2.0-liter four.

Power ranking is basically Hyundai 2.5 < Maverick 2.5H < Maverick 2.0T < Hyundai 2.5T. Sweet spot for me I'm 99% sure is Maverick 2.5H in a XLT basic trim if I follow my brain, and Hyundai 2.5T in well equipped trim if I follow my heart.

 

[ToadVine]

On the left, but as you'd expect, when underway its not dropping RPM that low. What it is showing is that the gearing is very tall (it appears to only be in 6th gear at 140mph), wide spaced, and not rushed shifting, and of course that's from the Santa Fe and probably not in sport mode which would make the power drop less pronounced at the cost of a little extra harshness. I'd prefer lower gearing, which the SC in order to achieve better towing numbers may have, which would make it feel much faster at the cost of a few MPG (which is perhaps why its lower than we expect, the Maverick tow package also changes the final drive).
... Maverick 2.5H in a XLT basic trim if I follow my brain, and Hyundai 2.5T in well equipped trim if I follow my heart.

...and looming over our heart and mind is our wallet!
Prices, Hyundai, let's have some prices.

 

[JMII]

Hard to equate driving feel from those charts. Going to have to get behind the wheel and give them all a test drive.

Agree. I'm not sure how those charts were created but I wouldn't read too much into them. Until we get the gear ratios from Hyundai this is mostly guess work. I too assume the SC will have lower ratios to make it quicker and optimize towing.

Just realized the 13:1 compression on the Maverick hybrid - guess what people that requires premium fuel. It's even in Ford's press release but you have to scroll all the way to bottom.

 

[JASmith]

Agree. I'm not sure how those charts were created but I wouldn't read too much into them. Until we get the gear ratios from Hyundai this is mostly guess work. I too assume the SC will have lower ratios to make it quicker and optimize towing.

Just realized the 13:1 compression on the Maverick hybrid - guess what people that requires premium fuel. It's even in Ford's press release but you have to scroll all the way to bottom.

Escape is regular 2021 Ford Escape FWD HEV

The Hyundai 2.5 naturally aspirated is also 13:1 compression ratio, and EPA listed as regular fuel. shrugs

Edit: I found more info, confirming the 2.0 turbocharged DOES recommend 91+ octane, but the hybrid 2.5 does not (from the Ford Escape, but same engine): https://media.ford.com/content/dam/fordmedia/North America/US/product/2020/escape/2020-Ford-Escape-Tech-Specs.pdf

2.0-liter EcoBoost: 87-octane (minimum)/ 91+ (rec.)
2.5-liter FHEV: 87-octane (minimum)

 

[JASmith]

You can see some info on the respective build websites:
Maverick: https://shop.ford.com/configure/maverick/model/customize/xl
Santa Cruz: 2022 Santa Cruz Debut | Sport Adventure Vehicle | Hyundai USA

But here's also build sheets now available that show standard equipment in a bit more detail:

 

[Jdens]

@JASmith- any idea why the prices listed at the top of your first post for the SC are not listed with an (* Estimated)? I know prices have not been released yet, but where did these figures come from?

 

[JASmith]

@JASmith- any idea why the prices listed at the top of your first post for the SC are not listed with an (* Estimated)? I know prices have not been released yet, but where did these figures come from?

Probably just a typo from the original publication. In another place they put hp where it should say torque.

 

[HSC4ME]

The one surprising thing about those charts for me is the similarity between the base model of each. I'm now have to drive the Maverick 2.5L Hybrid to see what that 30mph+ constant HP feels like in the real world with its' CVT.

Doesn't Ford already make an AWD Hybrid Escape or other model with that setup? I seem to recall that being mentioned in one of the videos. If so, why isn't it offered in the Maverick?

 

[JMII]

Edit: I found more info, confirming the 2.0 turbocharged DOES recommend 91+ octane, but the hybrid 2.5 does not

Weird. I know the Ranger takes regular but recommends premium in hot climates or when towing.

The SC takes regular fuel for both engines but without the owners manual we don't if they too will recommend higher test. Many high compression engines will ping under high loads. And turbos are generally high compression engines. Just food for thought.

 

[ToadVine]

... high compression engines will ping under high loads....

If needed, the computer can retard the spark timing to prevent pre-detonation -- but it costs you some gas mileage.

 

[JASmith]

The SC takes regular fuel for both engines but without the owners manual we don't if they too will recommend higher test. Many high compression engines will ping under high loads. And turbos are generally high compression engines. Just food for thought.

Supposedly direct injection can allow much higher compression without detonating, or in the case of Mazda with their skyactive tech using controlled autoignition like a diesel. The Maverick Turbo, and both the naturally aspirated and turbo Santa Cruz are direct injection, but the hybrid 2.5 engine is not direct injected and still has a 13:1 CR.

However, I read somewhere that the 2.5 in the Ford is oddly detuned and won't even run itself to redline which could explain why they are listing horsepower numbers that don't really make sense considering the peak power that engine and electric motor should be capable of combined. So perhaps that's how they get away with regular fuel, but like you showed Ford for the sake of their lawyers on their internal tests still ran premium on the hybrid even though for the Escape its not even listed as recommended using virtually the same powertrain. Maybe they just run that because it can potentially make the smallest difference still, so they end up running it to get peak #s.

Here the Escape 2.5 Hybrid owner's manual (same powertrain as Maverick) again doesn't list recommendation for 91+ octane like they do on the turbo: https://www.fordservicecontent.com/...d=6854&vFilteringEnabled=False&userMarket=USA

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS - 2.5L, HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE (HEV)/PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE (PHEV)

Measurement	Specification
Displacement.​	152 in³ (2,490 cm³)
Fuel type.​	Minimum 87 octane
Compression ratio.​	13.0:1
Firing order.​	1-3-4-2
Spark plug gap.​	0.051 in (1.3 mm)

And what's really weird is that Hyundai advertises that the 2.5L 2022 Tucson naturally aspirated engine (same base engine in the SC) uses 87 octane and that's what the EPA sticker shows too, and yet in the owner's manual it says 91 octane recommended:
https://owners.hyundaiusa.com/conte...ual/2022/tucson/2022-Tucson-Owners-Manual.pdf (see page 9)

Gasoline engine Unleaded Your new vehicle is designed to use only unleaded fuel having an octane number ((R+M)/2) of 91 (Research Octane Number 95) or higher. (Do not use methanol blended fuels)

The Santa Fe 2.5L Turbo engine by contrast (again same as SC higher trims) recommends 87 octane in the owner's manual (page 11):

https://owners.hyundaiusa.com/content/dam/hyundai/us/myhyundai/glovebox-manual/2021/santa-fe/2021-SantaFe-Owners-Manual.pdf

Gasoline engine Unleaded Your new vehicle is designed to use only unleaded fuel having an octane number ((R+M)/2) of 87 (Research Octane Number 91) or higher. (Do not use methanol blended fuels)

Clear as mud!

 

[JMII]

Clear as mud!

🤪 your mileage may vary and now the fuel we recommend you use will vary too.

 

[JASmith]

Good news for the Santa Cruz, but bad news for the Maverick....

So we know the Maverick is based on the Escape chassis, and both its powertrains are available on the Escape already for us to review. Its copilot360 technology package, warranty, infotainment, and so forth likewise can be observed on the Escape already available as a 2020 model.

So I've been doing more Escape research accordingly, and while some of it is good like handling and fuel economy meeting or beating EPA ratings (something many vehicles do not), there's also a lot of, uhm, not so good things.

Car and Driver marks it dead last in class, lagging way behind Mazda: 2021 Ford Escape Review, Pricing, and Specs

One complaint was the low grade interior plastics, something I saw even in videos of the Maverick where there was a lot of hard, and oddly blue, interior plastic:

The Escape's cabin, while handsomely styled and spacious for both front- and rear-seat occupants, suffers from several low-rent plastic panels, including those on the doors and lower center console.

Checking Consumer Reports 2021 Survey Feedback, also not a great verdict, with lowest possible reliability score and only so-so consumer satisfaction responses, finishing only above the flop Fiat 500X, Renegade, Compass, and Ecosport with top honors going to Mazda and Subaru again:

Thoughts?

 

[JMII]

My parents have an older Escape and there is nothing wrong with it, they like it a lot. I find the interior perfectly acceptable for what it is (your basic CUV). A coworker of mine just got a Mazda CX30 and it is much nicer for sure. Now in the past Ford has gotten dinged on these survey's due to the Sync system being buggy and difficult to use so not sure how much that factors in here.

Keep in mind in order to reach the Maverick's price point something had to give... and it was clearly the interior. Like I said in another post no matter what options you pick the Mav will always have a $20k interior. The only real upgrade appears to be heater, fake leather brown seats.

 

[JASmith]

Yeah, with the right price/trim (XLT Hybrid for example), a cheap interior isn't the end of the world, but I want to see it in person first. The reliability issue is a concern though, as this is the survey from 21, meaning they had a year to report how many issues they had, so predicted reliability for the next year would be based on that. Luckily the hybrid by federal law has a long warranty, but the bumper/bumper is poor compared to the Hyundai.

I'm not sure that a car has to be expensive to have decent interior materials though in 2022, as this new Civic is $22.7K after destination fee:

BTW, while the Hyundai interior is amazing, notice the nice physical dials and minimal use of gloss black so you're not afraid to touch it. This is something that Hyundai can improve on IMO.